Time, Change, and History 

Jeremy Rifkin, in his work  Time Wars,  proposes that our concept of time is a product of the level of culture in which we live. The less technological the culture, the less need is there to compartmentalize time. In the ancient world, when people overwhelmingly led a nomadic existence, there was little need to think of time except in terms of seasons. As people settled into a more pastoral existence the only really significant time was the time to plant. There exists ample worldwide archeological evidence of the ancient world being concerned with identifying the spring equinox, and not too much attention being paid to anything else. 

When people achieved significant organization into communities there then existed a need to be able to identify with some degree of regularity those activities that were deemed necessary for the maintenance of community. In the theocracy of medieval Europe, the
ringing of the church bells morning, noon, and evening, and recognition of the Sabbath and various religious feast days, further compartmentalized time--from seasons to days, to broad divisions within the day. 

There was little need to divide time into hours in the western world until individuals began selling their time (the wage system) and a standardized unit of measurement was needed. The invention of the mechanical clock was most certainly a timely event. But was further measurement of time needed? With increased technology, because the factory system demanded progressively more precise control systems, and hence, further refined measurement systems, the information age was a foregone conclusion. And as increasingly massive amounts of data needed to be processed, is not further division of time a sine qua non?  Rifkin has even coined a term for it. Whereas the factory age was controlled by clock time, the new information age is controlled by  computime. 
  
  

Now let  us think a little about change. Change can only exist within time. Some change is natural, such as the process of aging, or, what the weather regularly does. This type of change is generally regarded as a normal part of everyday living. But change in the patterns or routine of life as we have established them for ourselves is oftentimes not so readily accepted. Indeed, such change can be viewed with some degree of apprehension, and occasionally, even with fear. But it should also be noted that not everyone is adversely affected by change; some few hardly souls actually thrive on it. 

What is it about change that makes it appear ominous to so many? Basically, it is fear of the unknown. The present, even if absolutely miserable, is known. The future, whatever it might be, is not. This is a crucial distinction. Also, change is often viewed as being disruptive. It is easy and relatively stress free to perform the ordinary, the routine, the familiar, and quite the opposite experiencing the new or the different. It is for this reason that so many occasional travelers become ill while traveling. The stress of experiencing new environments can actually compromise the immune system. Think about the first time you experienced anything, and how you felt. Now think about the second and subsequent times you had the same experience and how stress and anxiety diminished. This is why some people resist change, even if it would ultimately improve their condition; it takes them out of their known comfort zone of the familiar. 

Traditional societies are those that either do not change or that change imperceptibly. Generally, they cannot be developed societies. Our society is one in which change, at least  for those who share in the alleged benefits of progress, is an ongoing way of life. Science and technology drive change. Society continually repositions itself to confront new ways of having to deal with old issues or newly created issues. 
  

And now let us turn our attention to a brief discussion of theories of history. History in its most basic definition is a study of the written record of the past, thus encompassing but a mere few thousands of years of human existence. The time before the appearance of written language is the domain of the anthropologist, archeologist, and other sleuths of the past. History exists within time, is a constantly changing record, is regularly reinterpreted by the ever changing present, and is linear in its perspective. A more refined definition of history advances the discipline as an interpretive study that attempts to understand the recorded past in order to better understand the present, with the ultimate aim of better knowing the future. 

The most advanced history is philosophy of history, that branch of historical study that concentrates on the ultimate destiny of humankind. Three major theories or viewpoints have been advanced. The teleological view claims that the end of history is within time, some sort of earthly utopia wherein complete control of physical phenomena and the perfectibility of human nature is somehow achieved, presumably through massive scientific advances. The apocalyptical  view suggests a very violent end to human history by supernatural, natural, or human means, depending on the various subplots of the view. The prophetic view proposes an end to human history, but an end predicted by revelation, with a promise of continuation of existence on another plane of consciousness. Personal religious beliefs play a major role in determining exactly how this will occur. 

We will further discuss beliefs and history in the next unit

Do we think and behave differently depending on our concept of time?

Do retirees view time in the same manner as those still employed? Do urbanites think of time in the same manner as rural or small town dwellers? What does the expression “time flies when you’re having fun” mean?

Is there really a need to measure time in microseconds or nanoseconds?

Do a personal inventory on yourself (you may or may not choose to share t). Do you perform most of your activities routinely, e.g., eat the same food regularly or frequent the same establishments consistently? Do you seek out new experiences, or are you quite comfortable with the familiar?

Are you in line for the latest movie or newest technology, or are you willing to wait until the rush dies down?

Is change something that should be valued?

What are the positive aspects of change? The negative?

Evaluate the three views of history, noting that your evaluation is a product of your own beliefs.

What kind of end do you “see” for humanity?